J.M.D., In Interest of, A96A0462
| Decision Date | 29 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. A96A0462,A96A0462 |
| Citation | 472 S.E.2d 123,221 Ga.App. 556 |
| Parties | In the Interest of J.M.D. et al., children. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Hassett, Cohen, Beitchman & Goldstein, Jeffrey A. Bashuk, Atlanta, for appellant.
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., William C. Joy, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Shalen A. Sgrosso, Asst. Atty. Gen., Rubin, Winter, Rapoport & Hall, Robert E. Hall, Theodore A. Speaker, Atlanta, James W. Blount, Lithonia, for appellee.
Cowanda Cox appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to her five children, J. M. D., J. J. D., K. C. C., J. R. C., and D. Q. C., ages two through nine. In her sole enumeration of error, Cox asserts that there was insufficient evidence establishing that her conduct caused the children to be deprived. For reasons which follow, we affirm.
OCGA § 15-11-81 provides a two-step analysis for determining whether a parent's rights should be terminated. In the Interest of D. I. W., 215 Ga.App. 644, 645(1), 451 S.E.2d 804 (1994). First, the court determines whether there is clear and convincing evidence of parental misconduct or that the parent is unable to care for and control the child. Id. Second, the court determines whether termination is in the best interest of the child. Id. In determining whether a parent's misconduct or inability warrants a termination of parental rights, a court must consider whether (1) the child is deprived; (2) the lack of proper parental care or control is the cause of the deprivation; (3) the cause of the deprivation is likely to continue or will not be remedied; and (4) the continued deprivation will cause or is likely to cause serious physical, mental, emotional, or moral harm to the child. Id.
On appeal, we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the juvenile court's order and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's rights should have been terminated. In the Interest of M. N. L., 221 Ga.App. 123, 470 S.E.2d 753 (1996); In the Interest of D. I. W., supra at 645, 451 S.E.2d 804. We do not weigh the evidence and must defer to the trial judge as the factfinder. In the Interest of A. L. L., 211 Ga.App. 767, 769(5), 440 S.E.2d 517 (1994).
Viewed in this light, the record shows that the children were fathered by various individuals, none of whom participated in raising them or provided financial support. The children, except D. Q. C. who was not born at the time, were first taken into custody by the Department of Family & Children Services ("DFCS") in August 1992. The record shows that Cox admitted she was using illegal drugs, the children's home was infested with vermin, and K. C. C. had ant bite sores on her. Over the next three years, several plans were developed to reunite Cox with her children. The plans required Cox to undergo drug evaluations, complete inpatient drug treatment, attend to her medical needs associated with being pregnant and HIV positive, obtain stable housing, attend parenting skills classes and visit the children on a monthly basis. DFCS reviewed Cox's progress under each of the plans on a periodic basis, and although Cox was invited to the reviews, she attended only occasionally.
Cox had significant problems complying with the plans. Although Cox testified that she completed two drug treatment programs, two of her DFCS caseworkers testified that they were not aware that she completed any. The caseworkers testified that although Cox was currently enrolled in a drug treatment program, she had entered several in the past, had quit attending some, was expelled from others, and completed none. In addition, one caseworker described Cox's housing situation as "very unstable." She was periodically evicted from housing she obtained on her own, has lived with relatives and other acquaintances, and at times lived in battered women's shelters and homeless shelters. Regarding the parenting skills classes, a caseworker testified that Cox enrolled in a class, but did not participate in enough of the classes to obtain a certificate. Although Cox generally visited...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re S.S.G.A., A07A0285.
...285 Ga. App. 276 ... 645 S.E.2d 724 ... In the Interest of S.S.G.A. et al., children ... In the Interest of Q.P.A., a child ... No. A07A0285 ... No ... ...
-
E.C., In Interest of, A97A0454
...689, 694, 292 S.E.2d 821 (1982); see also In the Interest of A.M.V., 222 Ga.App. 528, 474 S.E.2d 723 (1996); In the Interest of J.M.D., 221 Ga.App. 556, 472 S.E.2d 123 (1996); In the Interest of S.L.W., 221 Ga.App. 509, 510, 471 S.E.2d 579 (1996) (holding that the 'reviewing court is to def......
-
In re L.G., A05A0519.
...in favor of likely continued deprivation. See In the Interest of D.L.D., 248 Ga.App. at 153, 546 S.E.2d 11; In the Interest of J.M.D., 221 Ga.App. 556, 558, 472 S.E.2d 123 (1996). Lastly, appellant's failure to regularly visit with L.G. and Y.G. and the resulting lack of a parent-child bond......
-
IN RE RG, No. A01A0040
...243 Ga.App. 626, 534 S.E.2d 109. 4. In the Interest of J.H., 244 Ga.App. 788, 792(2), 536 S.E.2d 805 (2000); In the Interest of J.M.D., 221 Ga.App. 556, 558, 472 S.E.2d 123 (1996); see In the Interest of E.C., 225 Ga.App. 12, 15, 482 S.E.2d 522 (1997). 5. See OCGA § 15-11-94(b)(4)(C)(i), (i......